Is Harper Really That Smart?

A quote: It's not unusual for a political party to shoot itself in the foot. It is unusual that they'd take such careful aim.

http://thechronicleherald.ca/NovaScotian/1094669.html

Tangentially related to this, I remember seeing web page ads that featured a cartoon George W Bush - usually with a saying like "His IQ is 127, what's yours?". It was basically an updated punch the monkey ad. I've seen it on Fark and Hotmail and such. The most important thing this tells me is that I should configure an ad-blocker. I'd do this, except I'm in love with most of the Snorg-Tee models.

Where was I? Oh yes, test your IQ vs. Bush ads. I'm now seeing them with Harper. Take that as you will. Not only are the Ads getting more specific - they're probably getting my location off my IP address, they also know who to satirize.

Envy, Justice, Dogs, Monkeys

Slactivist has an interesting take on the difference between envy and justice. Not just interesting for the conclusions of a scientific study (turns out dogs like to get rewarded for their efforts, same as people. Also, your dog wants steak.), but for how the media misrepresented the study.

The media wants to describe the study as some dogs being envious of other dogs, which isn't what the researcher set out to do, nor what they reported finding. This seems to be the same thing they do when they report about people seeking social justice. They report it as some monkeys being envious of other monkeys.

More Monkey See, Monkey Do.

Quasi-related to the previous post, I read a study about a year ago on altruism in animal populations. I don't have a cite for it now (I read it in a magazine) so this is mostly from memory.

Chimps cooperate with each other and also do each other favours. This is not surprising when you consider that they're our closest living relative and very similar as far as social primates go. What surprised the researchers was that favour-trading was almost exactly like humans. Basically, you can divide favour-trading behavior into three categories:

1. Screw you: Chimp-A isn't going to do a favour for Chimp-B, even if it means losing out personally. For example, cooperation gives a reward of some kind. This seems to be reserved for when Chimp-A has a personal grudge against Chimp-B.
   
2. Tit-for-tat: Chimp-A keeps a mental tally of favours to Chimp-B and will stop doing them if Chimp-B doesn't reciprocate. Note that the favours will start up again if Chimp-B cleans up his act. Also note that new chimps tend to fall into this category, albeit with a fairly narrow leeway.
   
3. Mi Casa Su Casa: Chimp-A is always willing to help out Chimp-B (and vice-versa), but they don't keep a mental tally. The chimps are friends basically.

This is classic game theory, so the researchers weren't terribly surprised by the findings. It was when they looked at chimps that jumped from one category to another that they found it to be especially human-like.

It takes a lot of effort to move between categories. The level of effort also changes depending on past behavior. Going up a level (tit-for-tat to mi casa su casa for example is relatively simple the first time you do, but becomes a lot harder if you've dropped and are trying to return. A large enough betrayal and you can't return at all.

Love and loyalty. Hatred and betrayal. There was a time when I thought animals couldn't have the same level of emotion that we do, but I'm coming around on that. Partially because I read this study and it felt very right to me.

Cravings Cravings

I was introduced to Cravings Restaurant over the weekend and now I want to go again. It's what a cafeteria wants to be when it grows up.